[PATCH v3 17/55] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Add IRQ sync/flush framework

[Andre Przywara]

Hi,

On 12/05/16 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:45:30AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>
>> Implement the framework for syncing IRQs between our emulation and
>> the list registers, which represent the guest's view of IRQs.
>> This is done in kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate and kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate,
>> which gets called on guest entry and exit.
>> The code talking to the actual GICv2/v3 hardware is added in the
>> following patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger at linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
>> index 4fb20fd..c6f8b9b 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +/* Requires the VCPU's ap_list_lock to be held. */
>> +static void vgic_flush_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>> +	struct vgic_irq *irq;
>> +	int count = 0;
>> +
>> +	DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
>> +
>> +	if (unlikely(!vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.enabled))
>> +		goto out_clean;
> 
> 
> I know I said I reviewed this, but thinking about this more carefully,
> doesn't the enable bit actually tell us if forwarding of pending
> interrupts is enabled, but not whether or not the vgic exists?
> 
> So you could imagine a guest that turns off the GIC, but still has
> active interrupts that it wants to disable/EOI, in the case of
> shutdown/reboot for example, or is this architecturally not allowed?

I guess you are right, the spec talks only about GICD.CTLR[Enable]
controlling the forwarding of pending interrupts to the CPU interface.
If you don't want interrupts at all, I guess you disable the CPU interface.

So we just don't put pending IRQs in the LR, but only active ones.
I am coding this right now.

Cheers,
Andre

> 
> If it is, then we should, at least theoretically, still forward active
> interrupts in LRs despite the enabled bit being clear, but modify the
> oracle to take the global enable bit into account.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer